No one appeared for the petitioner. The High Court dismissed the 16-year-old writ petition as the requested mandamus relief had become infructuous, while allowing a liberty to apply for recall.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16416 of 2009
Petitioner :- Makhan Lal Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Case called out. No one appears for the petitioner.
This writ petition is of the year 2009.
From the relief in the nature of mandamus claimed in the writ petition, it appears that the writ petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous.
However, in case any cause still survives in the writ petition, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for recall of this order.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 22.10.2018 NLY
Makhan Lal Nishad
State Of U.P.
B. Amit Sthalekar
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
